In this section

Tuesday, April 27.

An ingrossed Bill from the Lords, for [the better] tryal of
Peers, importing thirty Peers at least to be summoned, &c. was
read the first time.

[It was ordered to be read a second time in a full House.]

The Articles against the Lord Treasurer were this day delivered, more fully drawn up, by Sir Samuel Barnardiston, and were
as follows (fn. 1) :

I. That Thomas, E. of Danby, Lord High Treasurer of England,
hath violated the method of the Exchequer, exposing thereby the revenue, and ingrossing all the power into his own hands: That the said
Lord Treasurer(fn. 2) hath overthrown and violated the ancient course
and constitution of the Exchequer, by perverting the method of
receipts, payments, and accounts, contrary to law; whereby the
King's revenue is put into confusion, and a wasteful way of expence, to the destruction of his [Majesty's] credit, and exposing his
Majesty's treasure and revenue to private bargains, and corruptions; and hath ingrossed into his own hands the sole power of
disposing almost all the King's revenue, laying aside the Chancellor [and Under-Treasurer] of the Exchequer, and other officers;
whereby the usual and safe government of his Majesty's affairs relating to his revenue, and all checks and controuls are avoided.

II. That a about the marriage of
the daughter of Sir Thomas Hyde, the said Earl caused one Mr
Brandly, a principal witness in the said cause, to be arrested by an
extraordinary warrant from one of the Secretaries of State;
and to be kept for some time inclose custody; during which time,
some of the said Earl's agents did labour the said Mr Brandly by
threatnings and promises of reward, not to declare the truth; and
at midnight he was brought and examined before his Majesty,
upon oath; where the said Earl was present and assisting. Whereupon the said Mr Brandly did, by the means aforesaid, deliver in
a testimony contrary to his own knowledge, and against his conscience, he being then in duress; by which illegal practices his
Majesty was highly abused, the parties concerned in the said lawsuit greatly prejudiced, and the truth suppressed, to the manifest
obstruction of justice; and all this was done with an intent to procure the said heiress to be married to the second son of the said
Earl.

III. That the said Earl hath received very great sums of money, besides the ordinary revenue, which have been most wastefully spent, and far greater sums than ever issued forth for secret
service, without account; the King's debts remaining unpaid,
the stores unfurnished, and the navy unrepaired, to the great discredit and hazard of the King and Kingdom.

IV. That the said Earl hath violated the rights and properties
of the people, by stopping, without authority, their legal payments
[due] in the Exchequer.

V. That though the office of Lord High Treasurer of England, is always [very] full of great and necessary employments,
yet the said Earl hath also assumed to himself the management of
the Irish affairs, which were, in precedent times, dispatched always
by the Secretaries office, and passed in council, thereby interrupting the said Secretaries; and neglecting his own; subtilly
enabling himself, the better to convert a [very] great sum [of money] out of the Irish revenues, to his own private advantage.

VI. That the said Earl hath procured great gifts and grants
from the Crown, [whilst under great debts, by warrants countersigned by himself.]

VII. That about the 4th of Dec. 1674, at the hearing [of] a
cause in the Treasury Chamber, some Acts of Parliament, now
in force, were urged against a Proclamation, and [contrary to]
what his Lordship aimed at; whereupon the said Earl, in contempt
of the law, uttered this arbitrary expression, "That a new Proclamation is better than an old Act," several of his Majesty's
subjects being present; and, upon his Lordship's report to the Privy
Council, the person in question being a foreigner, and not obeying
such Proclamation, but pursuing his right at law, was banished
[the Kingdom.]

[Debate on the first Article.]

Mr Powle.] By former patents—"Weekly to pay into the Exchequer, and by warrants signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;" this lay grievous upon the
Lord Treasurer, and he procured a warrant for a patent
for the sole disposing of the money himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hearing of this patent entered a
Caveat, and the patent was stopped and overthrown.
When that would not do, the Treasurer gets a warrant for this patent, whereby no order is mentioned,
to pay weekly into the Exchequer—Would have
it examined whether by this patent Mr Mounteney pays
any money into the Exchequer, except by order of the
Treasurer, ever since this patent passed—And would
know whether any warrants for pensions are paid at the
Custom-House, without any notice in the Exchequer, or
knowledge of it—And whether, in particular, the Duke
of Lauderdale hath not a pension of 3000l. per ann. paid
out of the customs.

Mr Garroway.] The commissioners of the customs do
not handle a penny of that money, and he begged of
the King he might rather go home and quit the employment, than have that imposed upon him—Mr Mounteney, the Patentee, is at the door, and will inform you further.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] The world does not expect
that a Secretary of State should understand all the offices
of England—' Tis well if he understand his own—For
the Privy Seal, they advice with the King's Counsel.
If the warrant be docketed right, they go no farther—
The Secretary has no office of correction—But if any
man enters his Caveat, till—acquainted with it, the King
gives a hearing—I he Chancellor of the Exchequer did
desire the Patent mentioned might not pass without hearing; he was heard, and so the Patent passed—He looked no farther than the docket, but did not look whether
countersigned by the Treasurer, or not—If the Attorney-General has viewed it, the Secretaries conclude it
legal, he being the judge of that.

Mr Powle.] If the Lord Treasurer signed it, if it so
appears, he is the procurer of it.

Sir John Hotham.] It is the part of the King's Counsel to answer the illegal advice, and not the Lord Treasurer, unless he did it himself without the Counsel.

Mr Garroway.] Some warrants for small sums have
been from the Treasurer—By tally into the Exchequer,
all warrants.

Sir John Hotham.] The Treasurer is not thought a
lawyer, and would not have him bear the faults of other men.

Mr Mounteney was brought to the Bar.

The Speaker, by the House's order, asked him, Whether
by the former Patents payments were to be made of the
customs weekly into the Exchequer?

Answer. Such warrants as should be ordered by the
Lord Treasurer, and warrants from the Commissioners of
the customs—The remainder was paid to the Exchequer.

Question. Whether all these warrants were signed by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Answer. Then they were.

Question. What practice was observed by former
Treasurers, before Lord Shaftesbury was joined with Lord
Southampton?

Answer. In the late King's time warrants were issued
out by the Lord Treasurer, without the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. In Lord Southampton's time they were issued out sometimes single, and sometimes with the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined.

Question. By whose warrant in striking tallies?

Answer. By the Lord Treasurer's warrant only, lately, and it has not been paid without the Lord Treasurer's
particular direction.

Question. Whether the Patents are entered at the custom house?

Answer. They are, and in particular the Duke of
Lauderdale's, whose payment there is quarterly.

Question. Whether he can name any other?

Answer. Creation money is there paid, he thinks, but
remembers pensions were paid when the Treasury was
under Commissioners management.

Question. What difference in this Patent from his
former?

Answer. The first Patent was to account a part for
wines and vinegar, but that was troublesome to the collectors of the out-ports;—whereupon they were made entire upon our account, and his Patent altered thereupon.

Questions to Sir Robert Howard.

I. Whether any sums, kept back out of the Exchechequer, are accounted for in the Exchequer?

II. Whether a Patent under the Great Seal, or warrant under the Privy Seal, be a warrant for officers of
the Exchequer to pay money upon, unless entered in the
Exchequer?

III. Whether the Patent for the Duke of Lauderdale's pension, be enrolled in the Exchequer?

Sir Robert Howard.] He is a sworn servant to the
King, in his office, and would have the questions in
writing, and show them to the King for his leave to answer.

Lord Cavendish.] He supposes no oath of secrecy taken by him, and he thinks he ought to give you an account.

Sir Nicholas Carew.] If it be so difficult to have an
account of things, he thinks it inconvenient to have such
officers as Howard, that will not tell the truth when demanded by the House—Believes he has no oath of Privy
Counsellor.

Sir Thomas Littleton.] There is no such obligation of
secrecy lies upon Howard, nor ever was practised; and
moves that the House may declare an opinion in it.

Sir Charles Wheeler.] If Howard will not do it, the
matter is upon record, and you may easily come by it.

Col. Titus.] As for obtaining the King's consent before
he answers any man, any man may see it—Public money
is all recorded, but if he desire till to morrow to search
his books, 'tis a modest request, and would have it granted him.

Mr Vaughan.] You are now the Grand Jury of the
nation, and suppose that the King should command him
not to answer to the questions, his going to the King
may put a hardship upon him, if the King should so
command him—You may for the public safety command his testimony.

It was put to the question, whether Sir Robert Howard should
answer to the questions proposed, relating to his office in the Exchequer, and carried in the affirmative.

The Speaker then put the question to him, Whether,
since the Patent was granted to Mr Mounteney, less money than formerly was brought into the Exchequer, from
the customs, and more money diverted from the Exchequer?

Sir Robert Howard.] Formerly the Patentee paid the
money, and it was never entered into the Exchequer, as
the more easy way for the persons to get their money,
than when paid in the Exchequer—What is received above the pensions (which are good store) is paid by tally
into the Exchequer—The pensions are never recorded—
All the out-lying moneys are foreign to his office—If the
Chancellor of the Exchequer should join with the Lord
Treasurer in warrants for payment of money out of his
office, he cannot pay a penny. No man can cheat in
the Exchequer, they never paying any money out of
method. As for the Duke of Lauderdale's pension, he
knows nothing of the grant of it, and many others.
Some pensions are enrolled both in the Custom House
and the Exchequer, enrolled in both places, and paid in
both places very honestly.

Sir George Downing.] The four Tellers of the Exchequer by their oath are bound not to tell one another what
money they have. As he is Commissioner of the Custom-House, he can tell you what money the Tellers have
—From thence he should abuse you to pretend to do it
any other way. Mr Mounteney can give you an account
of it; before he pays the Treasurer's warrants, he must
pay merchants debentures, and he must pay the charges of the Commissioners of the customs; likewise for
discovery of fraud, fire, candles, and boats. The debentures are paid by the Lord Treasurer's warrant, or the
Commissioners. He knows no new way of payments,
for the said Treasurer cannot divert the course—No warrant, before or after it is entered, but is taken notice of before let pass, to be either my Lord Treasurer's warrant,
the Great Seal, or Privy Seal.

Sir John Duncombe's Secretary being called in, was
asked by the Speaker, Whether less money came into the
Exchequer since the Patent was granted than before?

Answered. That he knew not the Exchequer affairs,
and could give no account of them.

Mr Sawyer.] Some of the revenues are charged in the
Exchequer, and some not charged. The receipt of the
Exchequer is the ultimate receipt. (And so be gave an
account of the Exchequer method.)

If the Lord Treasurer grants any warrant contrary to
the powers in his Patent, he must refund it to the Crown.
If the Lord Treasurer grants ever so many warrants, and if
there be no enrollment of them, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer may refuse them. Many of the revenues are
never chargeable in the Exchequer. For the customs,
there is no charge but a farm rent. If it depends upon
collection, there is an Officer on purpose for it—And
for the Excise, there is a particular Receiver, and Auditor—A distinct office. If there be any Patent for a
pension, or other payment, out of the Customs, it ought
to be entered at the Custom House, in the office where
the payment is made.

Mr Powle.] When Lord Cottington, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was in Spain, there was a patent granted
from the King, that the Lord Treasurer might sign warrants in the Chancellor's Office—More money has issued
out of the Treasury irregularly, in this Lord Treasurer's
time, than in any before him.

Sir Philip. Warwick.] The Lord Treasurer can do nothing in his Office, but by the King's warrant under the
great Seal, or the privy Seal—Any privy Seal, or Patent,
must be entered in the Office of the lower Exchequer
—By virtue of the Great Seal, or Privy Seal, an order
is drawn to make debentures.

Mr Powle.] The patent for the Excise runs "to pay
the money as the Lord Treasurer shall direct;" this empowers him to give verbal orders, which are never recorded, which is against common Law, and by Hen. III.
1 Eliz. I. 1 Rich. II. against Statute law, that grants
this revenue to the Crown. This patent brings the
Treasury somewhere else—and [as to] consent of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have that examined, and, upon enquiry, you will find it countersigned
by the Treasurer, without the advice of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.

Sir Charles Wheeler.] The Excise is governed by Commissioners in the Country, with subserviency to the
Commissioners at London—This patent the Treasurer
found before he came to his place. Sir Stephen Fox,
who had great payments assigned him out of this revenue,
for the payment of the Guards, and other uses, because
of the ill correspondency he had with the Commissioners
of Excise, had much trouble in it. Mr Kent, therefore,
the Patentee, was chosen as a person able for it. The
Lord Treasurer questioned, whether he might make a
Patentee for Receiver-General, when, as heretofore, it
was in the hands of the Commissioners of Excise. This was
the ground of the Patent—At last, by full and joint consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the thing was
agreed upon—'Till the Patent coming to the sealing, a
Caveat was put in by the Chancellor. Mr Kent was
much disturbed, because the Patent was stopped. This was
done the 8th of April last, and no longer before.

Mr Garroway.] This was designed for a temporary
Patent only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer being sick,
he could not for the present attend a hearing. As to
calling in the Chancellor's man, he knows not what he
can say for his master, and in this would not hear the
man, when you may hear the master. This Patent may
seem to cast dirt upon the Treasurer, but he doubts not
but the Treasurer will clear it.

[The question being put, whether it appears by this Patent
that there is matter, in the first Article, fit for an impeachment,
it passed in the Negative.]

Wednesday, April 28.

[Debate on the Patent resumed.]

Mr Powle's Questions to Sir John Duncombe, Chancellor
of the Exchequer.

1. Whether he had the knowledge of the proposals of
Mr Kent's Patent, before the passing of that Patent?

2. Whether the Treasurer may not, under colour of
these Patents, dispose of the Treasury without warrant
either by the great Seal, or privy Seal?

3. Whether, by colour of this Patent, the account of
the revenue of the Excise may not be taken away from the
Exchequer?

4. Whether this Patent be not contrary to the course
and constitution of the Exchequer, and the acts of Excise?

5. Whether private Tallies may not subject the Excise
to corruption.

6. Whether, by colour of this Patent, the whole account of the money is not taken from the Exchequer?

7. Whether the Patent was not by the Treasurer's
procurement, and signed by himself, without the consent
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir John Duncombe.] To the first Question "whether
he had knowledge of the proposals of Kent's Patent"
Answers, That he entered a caution against Kent's Patent.
In his absence from the House, by reason of sickness, has
heard of great alterations in this place, an impeachment
brought against the Lord Treasurer—Humbly prays the
House to consider the condition he is in at this time,
sick; but will give as good an account of it as he can,
and tell you how this business did first arise. There was
a contest between Sir Stephen Fox, and the Commissioners
of Excise. My Lord Treasurer called him to hear how
the matter was. The use the Treasurer made hereof was
fair—By both to bring the interest of money lower in
the Bank; when this was done, he had no more to do
with it. When the Treasury was in Commissioners hands,
Mr Wall had a Commission for it, but in paper only.
Now the question was, whether that Commission should
be in paper or under the great Seal. Sir Stephen Fox desired it might be rather under the great Seal, to confirm
that the Tallies struck in course, should be paid in course
—Things the Treasurer has the disposing of, never came
before him. He knew of this Patent two or three days
before he fell sick; he got a copy of it, and found extraordinary powers in it; before Easter, about Good
Friday, he was told it was at the Lord Keeper's, passing;
upon which he sent his Secretary to the Lord Keeper
about it, who sent him word that he heard of things in
the Patent, by report, and would discourse them with
him, which he did after dinner, and then desired the
Keeper, that, if things were so as they were represented,
before the Patent passed, he might advise with the Attorney
General, being a better judge of these things than he was.
The Keeper bid him go to the King, but he, being ill, desired the Keeper to speak to the Treasurer about it. On
Monday, Mr Bertie came to him, from the Keeper and
Treasurer, to let him know that a pressing necessity there
was that the Patent, by reason of clamour, should pass,
but that he should be heard. The Seal passed with these
cautions. He has waited upon the King those mornings
he could for his health—Undoubtedly, had he been heard
there, he had never come before you—If a thing be exorbitantly done, would have you bring it to its course,
without reflecting on a great person. If the King think
fit to pass the Patent upon these terms, he has nothing to
do, but to pay obedience to it. Whether you will examine this, or leave it before the King, to whom he has
appealed, and whose servant he is, leaves it to you;—
the end will be only the setting the thing right.

[Debate on the Second Question.]

Sir Robert Howard.] The Question is, "whether the
Lord Treasurer can, by this Patent, dispose of the Excise,
without warrant by the great Seal, or privy Seal," and so
become liable to no account. He thinks himself happy
that he shall say nothing here, but what he has said before
in another place. As good service may arise from this
Patent, as ever was done to the nation, he thinks—Before
this Patent was granted to Mr Kent, the Lord Treasurer sent
for him, and told him, "here are debts, and there must
be credits, and he would do accor ding to the constitution of the Exchequer." When he saw Kent's proposals to the
Commissioners of Excise, he desired the Treasurer and
Chancellor to do no such thing, for the proposals would
bring things to utter ruin in the Exchequer—Says the
Treasurer, "on the one side, I may do amiss in the Exchequer, and on the other side, I hazard the King's credit,
if I do it not." He showed him how it might be done
by the Tallies, according to law, and all returned into
the Exchequer. The Treasurer was pleased with it, but,
after this, he never knew of Kent's Patent, nor saw it, till
he saw it here, on the reputation of a Gentleman. The
course of the Exchequer is as ancient as the law of the land.
There is a docket usually passes with the Patent, and
that will give great light to it—It is a question, "whether
this be usual? In the dockets all the contents of the
Patents must be recited—This has been done, and hopes no
prejudice may arise upon it. Now 'tis a question, "whether this Patent does not take away the legal account in
the Exchequer?"—Tallies of anticipation take all things
out of course in the Exchequer, without doubt—By no
constitution nor law, but money must be paid in specie
into the Exchequer; and what is otherwise is different
from the law of the Exchequer—Tallies of anticipation
were much more [usual] in the former Lord Treasurer's
time, than this—Tallies of anticipation do expose the
King's accounts to interest accounts. "What will you give
us, and I'll pay you?"—The officers will do it. He cannot
tell whether the Patent was by the Treasurer's procurement
—He has told you that his judgment was to proceed legally in the Exchequer, and he knows nothing of passing
the Patent.

Mr Sec. Williamson.] This Patent passed not his
office.

Mr Sec. Coventry.] Was ill of the gout when the Patent
passed.

Sir Stephen Fox(fn. 3).] Knows the beginning of this Patent—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has saved him the labour
of saying some things about it. It began in April last, at the
disbanding of the army. My Lord Treasurer then sent for
the Cashiers—He gave no other assignments to them, than
upon the Excise, and would ease the rest of the revenue,
and burthen the Excise, that, by competition between
the Cashiers and the Excise, interest might be lowered.
All this was transacted between the Commissioners of the
Excise, and Fox, before the Lord Treasurer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fox proposed a Commission
under the Great Seal, and not a warrant from the Lord
Treasurer, to be preferable before all payments to invest
Kent with the greater authority—and none preferable to
these Tallies moneys were upon. He knows not of the
framing of the Patent, but the method of payment, preferable to all others, he promoted only. The authority
of it was referred to the King's Counsel—200,000l. was
borrowed upon this security—They lent it upon Tallies,
and have colateral security of persons. The scope of the
Patent was only to secure persons that advanced money.
Though the Excise office be not so regular as the Exchequer, yet 'tis very exact for money registering and
checks. No man borrows money at interest but Kent,
whereas heretofore they vyed who should get most money from the Bankers.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Kent—but one borrower!—The
method in the Excise exact, being registered, and therefore the interest stated!

Sir Stephen Fox.] The farmer never pays a penny of
the Excise to the receiver, but at the same time has the
Comptroller of the Excise's receipt.

Mr Powle.] All the officers allow this Patent to be an
exorbitant power—This is so clearly owned, he need not
repeat it. This clause is inserted into the Patent, and no
man knows by what means. Till it is made appear that
it was advised by the King's Counsel, he will not believe
it.—This way destroys all method in the Exchequer—
Hears no man say, that ever such a power was by Patent
before. Letters Patent to pass so suddenly as this has
done, looks like practice—Like a man that robs me of
my purse, and says, he borrowed it of me for a time
only. This may make the King's Counsel innocent, but
the Lord Treasurer to blame for this haste in passing it,
with which it is not consistent. Twelve months time
was proposed, and the thing under consideration November last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never consulted in
it—He has had opportunities more than other men, to
make this enquiry into the Patent, and the circumstances belonging to it. Would have the first question,
"Whether this Patent be not illegal."

Serjeant Maynard.] Suppose this Patent said nothing how this payment is to be made, or how to be accounted for; the question will be, "Whether an affirmative clause, in an Act of Parliament, without a negative clause, takes off the power the King had before
to grant such a Patent." If the King be not restrained
by any clause, he may use that power he had generally
before. Affirmative words do not put a negative upon
King—The court of augmentations was set up, and they
had power of the revenue, and all leases and grants of the
King's lands, under that Seal—And the King granted a
lease under the Great Seal, of some lands—'Twas adjudged that affirmative words, without a negative, do not
make a restraint upon the King—There are divers revenues which come not into the Exchequer—Desires the
excuse and pardon of the House, if he dares not trust his
judgment for the present, in such an assembly as this;
but says, that, in ordinary words, the Patent puts the account out of the Exchequer—But, under favour, suppose
the Patent clearly illegal, 'twas ill to advise it, but what's
your question? If not illegal, no crime, yet in the event and prospect of it it may be ill—'Tis no ground
of an impeachment not to understand the law. The
Treasurer's case may be that, in some points, he doubted the Patent—And he knows that, in the case of the
Stannaries, he was very careful to answer the law in it.
There was a present occasion of raising the King some
money—He sees not that the Treasurer was the contriver of the Patent; but those who would advance money proposed it—If a great officer of State, not bred to
the law, follows the advice of the King's Counsel, and if
the King is found not to be restrained by general words,
in an Act of Parliament—"illegal" and "inconveni"ent" are things very different, and are different questions. Thinks this Patent no ground of an impeachment upon this article.

Sir William Coventry.] He sees no ground of impeachment of the Lord Treasurer upon this article of
the Patent, the illegality of it not being cleared by the
lawyers. We have seen by what steps this Patent passed
—Who advised it? Rightly placed upon the Privy council.
But 'tis a hard thing that all the King's Ministers of State
must answer all circumstances of law. If so, then 'twill
follow, that no great officer of State but must be astudied
lawyer—Will not defend nor oppose the Treasurer, but
if it be found that the King's Counsel were neglected in
the advice, or their advice not followed, should think the
Treasurer to blame; but the King's Counsel hands him to
it, and, all due circumstances requisite considered, he is far
from impeaching the Treasurer—If the question should
be put, upon the impeachment of the Treasurer, he fears
the Patent would be forgotten, and nothing be said to it.
Here are more articles against the Treasurer than this—
The business of the navy you have appointed to hear,
and you will be furnished with great business for the short
time you have to sit—But would have some discountenance of this Patent now—The end of this Patent is that
trick of making new credit for the King—The subjects
property is in the King's credit; that has received such
a blow, that it is free for men to speak to it here. 'Tis
the anticipation of the King's revenue, and the facility of
it, [that is] an inducement to spend more than the revenue,
and to entrap men, by such securities, in the ruin of
themselves, wives, and children. If this goes on, it
must terminate in breach of property, and the Parliament, when it comes to it, must raise new levies on the
people, or the nation be destroyed, and lost, for want of
money to supply the necessities of the government. This
makes his fingers itch at the Patent. 'Tis said that the
Treasurer is not justified without the Great Seal, or Privy
Seal, for payments, yet he that pays it is justified to the
receiver; 'tis true, here is the Treasurer's order, but no
Great Seal—He says, he will not allow that Auditor; then
he applies to the Treasurer, and if he will be so adventurous, the Auditor resorts to the Treasurer, who probably will not make stop of payment, contrary to the intention of the Law; and so the King is put to an after-game
for his money. What, if the money be squandered away,
and the Treasurer in disfavour, and the King put to an aftergame?—Though in other things the Chancellor countersigns the warrants, in this the Treasurer signs only. The
Crown was never thought to have too many locks and keys
for money. When the order is signed to the officers of the
Exchequer, they must have Seals—As now the Patent is,
here's no retrospect, but still the King must play an aftergame. He avows he has long been full of this matter
of anticipations, and would have discountenance of it.
Would have no discountenance put upon the old and safe
way of registering in the Exchequer, and would vote the
Patent "dangerous, and contrary to the course of the
Exchequer."

Sir George Downing.] Those that move the vote for the
Patent, would not involve the Treasurer in it; others say,
that such a vote will reflect upon the Treasurer; but if it
be plain that it will reflect, moves to pass a vote, "that as
soon as the articles shall be gone over, you will take the
Patent into consideration."

Mr Swynfin.] The Debate is, whether this article be a
ground of impeachment, or upon the Patent, as contrary
to the course of the Exchequer. If it comes on the Lord
Treasurer, whether by his procurement or not, it reflects
upon you—The question with reflection on the Patent is a
separate and free from the Lord Treasurer. Should the
Patent be spared, for the Treasurer's sake, it would look
like too great partiality—When you have cleared the
Treasurer, then you come to the Patent, the ground of
the Debate.

Resolved, That there is no ground of impeachment against the
Lord Treasurer in this Article.

To the third Question "Whether by colour of this Patent,
&c. the account &c. may not be taken out of the Exchequer.

Debate on the third and fourth Questions.

Sir Nicholas Carew.] Moves, that the opinion of the
House may be known, whether this be a lawful Patent
or not. He's not a person that expects any office.

Sir John Duncombe, answers, He had been examined
before the King to this interrogatory, as he is now before
you, and might he have spoke his meaning and opinion,
he should there have desired the King's Counsel might be
heard, and desires you will do so here, because some of
the Exchequer Officers are present in the House.

Sir Thomas Meres.] We men that come out of the country, and would keep the King's revenue from ingrossing, would know whether it be not clear that this Patent
has the sole disposition of the money without Great Seal,
or Privy Seal, and would hear the Long Robe about it.

The Speaker reproved Sir Nicholas Carew for reflecting.

To which Sir Nicholas Carew said,] He has no office,
and expects no office, and means what he said no otherwise.

Mr Sacheverell.] You are moved to have the opinion
of the Long Robe, to pass your judgment upon—Duncombe refers himself to their judgment.

Mr Powle.] Those gentlemen of the House employed
in the Exchequer, know the course of things there better,
he supposes, than the Lawyers, and would hear them.

Mr Vaughan.] You interpret matter of Law in this,
and he would have the Long Robe heard.

Sir Henry Ford] Would have it enquired, first, whether
this Patent be illegal, or no; and then, whether the Lord
Treasurer has proceeded thereupon with ill intent. A
man may do a thing amiss, with a good intent.

Sir William Coventry.] Conceives the Long Robe necessary, but not yet, to be heard. Hear the Officers of the
Exchequer first—They may enlighten the Long Robe,
and then their opinion is seasonable to be given

Serjeant Maynard.] You now examine matters of fact
—The course of the Exchequer is the course of law
—The Judges would, in such cases, examine the Clerks
of the Exchequer; their course is the course of Exchequer law. If you mingle matters of discourse with
matters of fact, men cannot remember them. You are
to examine, whether the Patent goes to the matter
of that account.

Col. Birch.] He may fail in his prudence, but shall
never, he hopes, in his fidelity to this House. He is the
sole Auditor of the accounts of the Excise, and they
pass from him to the Exchequer. He will tell you the
whole truth, so help him God!—Till he is told of it,
will keep his office—When the receipt of this money
was taken out of the hands of the Commissioners of Excise, it was put into the hand of Kent, and a short warrant
was sent to them, that Kent should receive the money,
and be accountable to the Treasurer—He has told the
Treasurer, that, in case warrants should come to him,
and they interfered with law, he doubted he should
come to him about them. He knows little of the law,
but would know so much as to do his office—He brought
the laws of Excise to the Treasurer. "The business is too
big for you and me," said the Treasurer, "therefore go to
the Attorney General, and lay your objections before him;"
and he would do nothing, till satisfied in the legality of
it. He went to the Attorney General, and objected, and
debated, something with him, who said he would wait
upon the Lord Treasurer, and would give him satisfacin it. The Attorney did soon afterwards draw up a book
and set his hand to it, as the Clerks told him, but he never
saw the patent nor book—Shall say only, that, notwithstanding the clause in the patent, he assures you he shall not
pay Mr Kent any money, without the broad seal, or the privy seal, for it, except necessary wages, and other small
matters.

Mr Powle.] Whether Birch will pay it, or no, is not
the question, but, whether the Treasurer has power, by
this Patent to do it, or no, is the question.

Mr Attorney Montagu.] Though Birch will not pay
money without the Great Seal, or Privy Seal, yet thinks
the Treasurer not empowered to do any thing. Ld—'s
case—No man can dispose of the King's revenue, without either the Great Seal, or the Privy Seal—The Treasurer's very original Patent has general words in it to empower him, but the law imposes the Great Seal, or Privy Seal, upon him in all payments. If he does it without, he must refund, so that the Patent excludes not
Privy Seals, nor diverts the account of the money from
the Exchequer, but the officers there may call for an account of it.

Sir Thomas Lee.] If Gentlemen are not ready to give
an opinion in law, why do they first give an opinion of the
Patent? "Whether by colour of the Patent, the whole
account is not taken from the Exchequer", is the question.

Sir John Duncombe.] He cannot, and ought not, to
speak of this Patent, but must refer it to the King's
Counsel. Unfortunate hands, made use of by the Lord
Treasurer, may undo any Lord Treasurer in the world.
If the House thinks this power is in the Patent, Kent
may obey it with safety. If money be paid by such
warrants from the Treasurer, where and to whom must it
be accounted? He is accountable by tally in the Exchequer, and he must produce it. The order of the Exchequer, if known, would be found to be the greatest
beauty and œconomy in the world. What authority or
warrant, authorized by the Great Seal, may be, without expressing the cause? If for the navy, or secret service, all are expressed—These things are made public.

To the fifth Question, "Whether private tallies may not subject the Excise to corruption?"

Sir John Duncombe.] Supposes you in debt—Estates are
exposed to hardships as other men are, to take up money
upon their private occasions (fn. 4).

To the seventh Question "Whether the Treasurer's Patent
was not without the consent, &c."

Sir John Duncombe.] Knows not how the Patent was
countersigned, nor how it passed.

Resolved, That there is no ground of impeachment against the
Lord Treasurer in this Article.

Thursday, April 29.

On Mr Powle's motion for witnesses to be summoned, to
prove the second Article against the Lord Treasurer, he was ordered to name them. He named the Lord Mayor (fn. 5). It was
said to be of dangerous consequence to send an order to summon
witnesses without naming them. Several other persons being named, as one Salter and Vogelsung, they were summoned to attend.

Sir Samuel Barnardiston.] There is one Alre has been
dealt withall, and he cannot be found.

Col. Strangways.] Would not have orders of this
House granted like Justices of the Peace's blank warrants.

Sir John Birkenhead.] Some of these witnesses stand
excommunicated, and it may be they cannot come here
into the House, it being a Chapel.

Sir Samuel Barnardiston.] Names one Mr Brandly
to be summoned; supposes him to be the minister that
married Mrs Hyde, and Mr Offley the Counsellor.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Mr Offley is not brought here to be
examined in any thing to betray his client. A GownMan, in matters of the Crown, ought not to be spared
any more than another man.

[Mr Brandly and Mr Offley were summoned to attend, and
the Debate was adjourned to the next day.]

Sir John Knight.] Speaks to the business of the day.
Would have the Debate of Dr Burnet's evidence put off
till we have the King's answer, which we expect, and
would now go upon the business of the navy.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Such words as Burnet informs you
the Duke of Lauderdale should say, if proved, are of
the most dangerous consequence that were ever taken
notice of in Parliament.

Sir John Ernly] Dr Burnet has written so great encomiums on the Duke of Lauderdale, in some of his writings dedicatory to him (fn. 6), that sure his evidence will be
of little moment against him.

Mr Vaughan.] This epistle dedicatory of Burnet's
was but a compliment to Lauderdale, who was then Lord
Commissioner of Scotland, and not much to be regarded—Would adjourn the Debate for a week.

Mr Dalmahoy.] The book was an encomium on the
Duke of Lauderdale's justice. The Duke has done Burnet great kindnesses. 'Twill be said abroad to be done
out of spleen and malice here, and if countenanced will
destroy all society.

Col. Birch.] No man believes that such words as Bur
net tells you the Duke should say, were uttered at the
Market-Cross. Where there is matter let us go to the
bottom of it.

Sir Rob. Howard.] Dalmaboy said, 'that Burnet was set
on to do this, and suborned." Would have him make the
matter appear he has informed you of, this day sevennight,

Sir Thomas Lee.] For a man to be urged and persuaded to tell a truth of what is a crime against the Crown!—
If it be a fault to inform, pray declare it so.

Sir John Birkenbead.] Burnet concealed the words, because he thought them not dangerous; but, after having
written such a book to the Duke, he might have scorned
to have done it.

[This Debate was adjourned to May 4.]

A Bill [was read the second time] to incapaciate persons from
taking any offices of benefit, who are Parliament-men, during
Parliament, and if any such persons be chosen, that election to
be void. But the Borough, or County, may chuse the same person again, and that election stand good.

Sir Charles Wheeler.] He supposes one hundred persons in this House that would lay down their lives for
their country. It may be, some few persons in this House
are prisoners in the King's Bench. But this is an extraordinary case; persons that have been with the King in
banishment, and they, at the King's return, for want, could
not buy places of advantage whilst other men that staid
at home, grew rich—Would have posts come upon particular men, and let it be laid on every man's door, but
rather would have it got upon honour—Every little fellow is brought upon his oath—And not what becomes a
gentleman to say. This Bill is a great reflection upon
us all, and, without cause, it creates a perfect incapacity
in a man to serve his prince, and country, at one time.
After all the inconveniencies he has had these 30 years,
thinks he should be highly tempted if he take an office—That Gentleman should have places of 4 or 5000l.
per ann. and those that have been ruined have none!—
Why should not those have offices that have suffered, as
well as others? [Consider] the temptations of being disloyal
in the late times. The King may be willing to give a man
an office (and he is a great man that would refuse it)—A
man that has done ill, that the King might not remove
that office to a Parliament-man, that has done well, and
deserves it—strange that the King should be so confined! No age wherein men were of greater loyalty than
this, and now, for a few Parliament-men that have offices, to cast a reflection upon the whole assembly!—

Sir Robert Holt.] This Bill is in direct terms, that no
man that serves the King shall be capable of being a Parhament-man.

Sir Thomas Lee.] Is a great enemy to garbling the
House, as he has heard some say this Bill is. It only
leaves it to a man's choice, to stay here, or go home, and
that when he has an office. There are many changes
in ten or twelve years, when a Parliament sits so long.
Men are altered in some capacity or other. This Bill
relates to no man's office now in being—Knows not but
that Parliament-men may be compelled to be Sheriffs;
though, indeed, in time of privilege 'tis true we may
not go into the county to attend, yet knows not when
in prorogation you may not be compelled to it.
For the reason he has heard from Wheeler, this Bill
will make the King look that popular names may not
be an inducement to chuse officers from hence, and so
may not be deceived.

Sir Courtney Poolc.] This Bill is a garbling the Parliament, and a new modelling the Government, from a monarchy into a common wealth.

Col. Strangways.] Observes that few are in office, that
formerly have served the King—Neutral persons most.
The guards are mercenary, and therefore dangerous.
He that has endured all the heat of the day, would have
him receive his penny too, but is for no more. Would
not have those shut the door after them that have offices.
Never was poor Prince, nor Kingdom, abused as ours is.
No mariners paid, and yet those that bought their debentures at four and five shillings p.r pound, presently
paid. For the danger he incurs and his service, he deserves an office. (For office of profit he desires none)
As for the office of Sheriff, no man will desireit, unless for
Yorkshire. Would have all that have offices leave them,
and be chosen to them again—And the King have liberty to remove them, and take them again—As that of
Parliament-man in this Bill.

Mr Secretary Coventry.] Would willingly quit his office, if it hinders him from serving the King and his
country here. Justices of the Peace, and the office of DeputyLieutenants require attendance in the country, though those
offices are excepted in the Bill. Would not for any office, or place whatsoever, but discharge his conscience
here. Some hardships will arise in this Bill upon men —
Dimmock, Champion to the King by descent, must not be
chosen a Parliament-man. That any thing should force
a man to a new election, that forfeits it not, is very hard;
whereas, by parity of reason, if his office incapacitates a
man once, it should incapacitate him again. Any man
may enter into a bond to his corporation, of a thousand
pounds when he takes an office, after being chosen Parliament-man, to be forfeited. Is not your mace frequently sent
for the gentlemen of the Long Robe, into the Hall to attend your service? You are pleased to make use of the
Privy Counsellors to carry your messages to the King.
Formerly they had cushions to sit on, but were thrown
out of doors, and must they be thrown out of doors too?
This Bill is not consistent with the government, and he
would lay it by.

Mr Vaughan.] Though we are loyal, yet there have
been parties in the Parliaments, court, and country;
and, in many things, have desired to advise with their
country, before they give consent. Men have varied in
their principles, and 'tis natural for men to do so. Where
an office is inconsistent with the service of the country
in the person that has it, 'tis reasonable that place should
chuse another person, and where that place has no jealousy to think they shall not be well served, 'tis for the honour of the person to be chosen again. Moves for commitment of the Bill.

Serjeant Maynard] If you make a law against such
bribes as are given to come into a place to serve here,
you would do full as much as by this Bill.

Col. Titus.] Never had any place at court, but what
he has had these 25 years. Weighing all circumstances, he is against commitment of the Bill—There are reasons against the right of the subject—No reason why
any man, but a fool or a knave, should be incapacitated to
sit here. This is some invasion of the King's prerogative. If the King thinks a man qualified for an office, that is as much as to say "You will not trust him
that the country trusts." You may hereby put the King upon a necessity of putting unfit men into offices. Suppose an Admiral at sea, either this man must not go to
sea, or you turn him out for serving his country. These
splendid and extraordinary things never yet did good.
After the Long Parliament had passed the self-denying ordinance, they never did deny themselves any thing.

Sir William Coventry.] Differs from Sir Thomas Meres
in his motion for adjourning the Debate. The hand that
did it (himself) will stand, with all submission, to the
judgment of the House in its determination, with the
same heart he brought it in with. The Bill does not provide that great officers shall not serve the King. Those
that have offices may be the safer in them, and those
that have no places shall not get them from them that
have. The old way was, men were chosen into Parliament, after they had been Privy Counsellors, and hopes
so still, to be the better able to serve the country, and
place they are chosen for. You are told "'tis hard for an
Admiral"—and "that the Bill is not large enough for the
Militia officers," which may be answered—And all the others are no objections for throwing out the Bill. We
have served here a great while, and, it may be, his corporation would not chuse him again because he has no
office, that another may serve them better—Consider
what may be the consequence. If qualifications change—
and not only absence may make us ignorant of the affairs of the place we serve for, but our presence here
may do it to the office also. Edicts may meet with a
stop in the Parliament of Paris, in their verification, but
seldom a defeat. This case, without this Bill, may be
so here. In 13 Edw. III, a writ was prayed that none
of that Parliament should be Viscount, (Sheriff) or other
minister, and so it went out. Here is no injury to the
person by this Bill; if he have no mind to the penalty of
being chosen again, if he have an office, he may chuse
what he will do. Whatsoever fate you give the Bill, he does
highly acquiesce in your judgment, and believes, if the
Bill does not pass, it may revive in future Parliaments.

Sir Henry Ford.] We find, by experience, that offices
may be hurtful in Parliament-time, but we find that
that popularity has done much more hurt.

Mr Finch.] Those, possibly, may speak to the sense,
though not the acceptation of the House: The consequence of this Bill is, that the service of the Crown is
incompatible with that here; when you consider a man so
that he has betrayed one trust, to accept of another,
he will come to his corporation, to be chosen again, with
an ill grace. We are not to pull feathers thus from the
King. There was a time when we had wages for our
service in Parliament. If no suspicion upon a man then,
why must an officer be suspected now that he gets by it?
If thought necessary that he should have an Estate that is
chosen a Parliament-man, by increasing it he is the
better qualified; having the better stake, and the more
reason to support his property. In that writ mentioned
of Edw. III. there is a clause, "that no Lawyer should
be chosen a Parliament man." The character of that
Parliament was, Indoctum Parliamentum. And Lord
Coke observes, "that not one good Law was made in that
Parliament." And if we should now say no Lawyer,
nor Officer, should be a Parliament-man, it is in effect to
say, no person that understands the business of the nation
shall be. For business of the country, gentlemen may
have experience, but for affairs of State they must be informed from Officers of State—self-denyal, is not so
plausible an argument for this Bill. If the King knows
not able men here, where shall he send, hue and cry,
after them in the country? The consequence will be,
you must have all officers of State out of the Lords house.

Sir William Coventry.] Sees that the sense of the
House is against the Bill; and whether "rejected" or
"not ingrossed" be the question, is indifferent; but the
country would think better of it, if the question were
"not ingrossed" than "rejected."

The Bill on a division was rejected, 145 to 113.

Friday, April 30.

Serjeant Hardres being dispossessed of his Recorder's place for
the city of Canterbury, in the time of privilege, was ordered to be
restored to his office. The thing being a breach of privilege, the
Mayor (fn. 7) and Aldermen of Canterbury, who displaced him, were
cail'd to the bar, being in custody of the Serjeant, where they all
kneel'd, whilst

[The Speaker told them] That they were brought hither
for a breach of privilege upon a Member of this House; whilst
he was employed in the service of his country, they turned him
out of the Recorder's place. They being Mayor, and Aldermen
of so considerable a place as Canterbury, were supposed not ignorant, that when you violate the privilege of one Member of this
House, you do it to the whole House. But finding you are sorry
for what you have done, upon submission, he does discharge
you, and you are discharged paying your usual fees. And the
Serjeant was ordered to be restored to his place.

[Consideration of the Articles against to Ld Treasurer resumed.]

Sir Samuel Barnardiston. The last term, he was present
at a tryal, where it appeared a great privilege of the subject was broken. He has summoned a person to make
it out, who is not to be found; and desires an order to
send for him.

Mr Sacheverell.] You now see the danger of naming
witnesses the other day, to subject them to be dealt
withall; would have them sent for in custody.

Sir John Bramstone.] The articles against the Lord Treasurer said, "That a suit was depending, in the Ecclesiastical
court, and the King's Bench." If you grant no certiorari,
yet your examining a principal witness here amounts to
it. Neither plantiff, nor defendant, have petitioned the
House, and you call in a principal witness, and blast the
reputation of the cause. On the other side, you would
take it ill that a jury should find a man faulty, that you
should say is a good witness. By summoning this witness, you assume a power you never had before, pending
the suit, to give credit, or discredit, to a witness. Should
the Lords assume hearing a cause, before it has been at
tryal at Law, you would think it a great oppression to the
subject.

Sir John Hotham.] Thinks the House concerned when
any man contemns your order, and would have the per
son sent for in custody.

Sir Samuel Barnardiston.] The persons snmmoned,
were Holmes, and Vogelsung his partner.

The Speaker.] Your orders are executed by the servants
of the House, the Serjeant's men; they are proper to
give you an account of them.

The Serjeant's men were called in.—They had the order
yesterday, at six of the clock in the evening, and went to the
person's house, [Salter's] who, the maid told them, was gone
into Kent.

Sir Samuel Barnardiston.] His man went thither this
morning, and the person was said to be at home. As for
Vogelsung, they could not hear of any such person.

Ordered, That a Messenger do enquire whether Salter hath
been at his house, since the order [of summons left at his
house, for his appearance.

Sir Thomas Meres.] Was always of opinion not to
hear witnesses at the bar; thinks it not for your service.
Why will you go to proof, when it may be, the subjectmatter of the article requires it not? 'Twill be of ill
precedent for the future.

Sir John Knight.] You have voted it already, and
you cannot go back, and would hear them at the bar.

Mr Ashburnham, the Cosserer.] He has a suit now depending in Westminster-Halt, and he fears he shall have
the worst of it—Prays he may have leave to bring it
hither, and he hopes he shall have the better of it.

Mr Sacheverell.] This gentleman has made a great
reflection, and you see what he makes of you.

Mr Garroway.] Would forbear comparing our particular cases with those of the nation—Would have the
gentleman forbear such reflections for the future.

Mr Sawyer.] Recites the articles about "the Treasurer's
marrying Mrs Hyde to his Son"—If you proceed to
hear witnesses at the bar, you must examine the right
of the marriage. These matters depending in the King's
Bench, for the lands; and in the Spiritual Court, for the
marriage. Those courts going one way, and you another, will much reflect on the honour of the House.

Taken down to Order by

Lord Cavendish.] You are now moved to refer it to
the law, against your order.

The Speaker.] You oblige not yourself, by order, to
proceed to any particular article. The witnesses are
summoned in general; not to one article.

Mr Sawyer.] The sting of the business is, whether the
Lord Treasurer has endeavoured by great hand, against
law, in this business. They are prior possessed of them—
And should it fall out that he should be innocent—
Interrupted again to Order.

The Speaker.] You may lay all, or any part of the
articles against the Lord Treasurer, aside. In a Bill, every
man may make his exception to any clause. So in this
case.

Mr Sawyer.] His meaning is, that it may receive its
just decision in law, before you proceed in it here.

Mr Powle.] At the present, here are two questions on
foot. He speaks to the article, whether fit to be received, or rejected. It is said "the matter is now depending
in the inferior courts." As to the right of the party,
every man may relinquish it, as he pleases. As a right
of the nation, any man may complain of it—Great men
may so awe the people, that they dare not appear themselves; the public justice of the nation may be thereby
obstructed, and so the poorer sort of subjects have their
causes stifled, and suppressed. Pray let us have no such
doctrine here, to hinder and stifle complainants coming
hither. This article is of great obstruction of justice.
Brandly, the great evidence of this marriage of Mrs
Hyde, sent for by extraordinary warrant, and kept to be
tampered with to give false testimony!—He appeals whether a higher oppression of justice could be. In a violent
manner, he has had rewards and promises, but by remorse of conscience, and shame for what he has said, is almost distracted with the sense of his sin. This way of
enquiry will rather open the justice of the inferior courts.
The thing may be deferred till the Parliament be up, and
then carried how the Treasurer pleases—He fears that is
the design.

Mr Sacheverell.] 'Tis a vain thing to go about to
prove that, that when proved is of no force. Thinks it
just these persons should be sent for, and strange, if this
article be no crime, knows not what is. If obstructing
of justice, and forcing a man to make oath before the
King, at midnight, against his knowledge, be not a
ground to impeach, he knows not what is.

Mr Sec. Williamson.] It may be expected he should
give the House an account of what has past in this business. This Mr Brandly, was taken at the instance of
my Lord Mayor, by a fair warrant, and brought to be
examined before him, between eight and nine of the clock
at night; as well to things relating to the person of the
Lord Mayor, as the Heiress. There were no threats nor
menaces used to him. Where he made a foul confession,
and a shame to his coat, and in due time he will produce
the warrant.

Sir Nicholas Carew.] It is said that justice has not been
obstructed. There is a difference betwixt part, and all,
but the frighting of one witness, may deter forty. Go
on, either by the witnesses, or the question, "whether
the article be a ground of impeachment."

Sir John Birkenhead.] The Lord Mayor gave bond of
40,000l. that he should not keep, or detain Mrs Hyde
from her liberty. Says my Lord Mayor, "Get me clear
of my bond, and the Ecclesiastical Court shall have what
they please; Mr Emerton shall keep her company, or do
what you please." These persons stand excommunicated
for contempt; this being a marriage and no banns asked,
nor other circumstances, by judgment of that court, they
are not allowed to be witnesses, but stand excommunicate.

Mr Vaughan.] Suppose the King goes a hunting, and
one brings an action against one of the company, of
trespass for riding over his ground, should the Secretary of State hinder the proceedings, it would be proper
for your cognizance, but not whether trespass, or no
trespass, but whether the law was obstructed. That the
thing is so or not, not now the question; but, whether
the proceedings at law were suppressed by great hand.

Sir Thomas Clarges.] Whatsoever we do, we must not
destroy the rights of this House. Men bring things
hither, because they despair of having justice at Westminster, by being brow-beaten by great men.

Mr Sec. Williamson.] You are first to enquire if there be
matter, and next, what proofs to it. Proposals passed from
my Lord Mayor to the Treasurer, for the younger son,
for Mrs Hyde. Upon the death of his mother, the
Lord Mayor renewed his instances to be perfected.
On January 8, he besought the Treasurer, that the articles might be formed. A few days after, came out the
discovery of the precedent marriage with Mr Emerton.
But there is such a fellow, practised upon, the person
so beset in the country, no getting him up—This
Brandly, was, by Mr Emerton, brought up to London
in a stage coach; but so guarded, not to be spoken with.
He was complained of to be examined for bringing the
young lady to a thing next felony, the party accomplice
in a matter that might be felony. He was asked, what
sureties he could get. It was answered, None. So he remained in custody, till the next day—The warrant was
"to all Justices of peace of Middlsex;" and he thinks
through England, for attaching him." It was done
without design to prevent any testimony, and making
good the articles and marriage. This is what he knows
in the matter.

Sir Samuel Barnardiston.] The Lord Treasurer visited
my Lord Mayor, and desired him to use his interest for
this match, and he would use his utmost interest for the repayment of his debt, due to him by the King, as a banker. My Lord Mayor, at last, declared he had made
articles with Mr Emerton, and the young lady was
married to him. The Treasurer then would know the
person that married them. Both their servants went to
gether to Mr Brandly, who owned that he had married
them, with the time, and all the circumstances thereof.
Whereupon the Treasurer gets a warrant from the Secretary to seize Mr Brandly, and did it with persons
armed with swords and pistols; carries him away, and
deals with him, that if he would deny the marriage, he
should have 1000l. given him; if he would not, he
should be ruined. This warrant, upon my Lord
Mayor's letter, was served upon Mr Brandly—The
King, the Treasurer, and the Secretary were present at
his examination, and he was paid 20l. in part of the
promised 1000l. Soon after, Mr Brandly, in great remorse, and disorder, complained that he was damned
for denying the marriage upon his oath. Then upon
giving him too much liquor, he denied it again. Emerton, after this, moves for an Habeas Corpus for his wife,
Mrs Hyde. The Lord Mayor stands to an alias and a
plures, and at last brings his daughter-in-law, Mrs Hyde,
into court, and there was ordered to enter into 40,000l.
Bond, not to restrain the lady. The Lord Treasurer, after
this, for ten, or fourteen days, pressed the marriage with
his son, and because the Lord Mayor would not consent
to it, the Treasurer has endeavoured to throw all the
odium upon my Lord Mayor. And this is the truth of
the fact, and he will prove it.

N. B. Excommunicated persons being present at the marriage,
the Ecclesiastical Court would not admit them for evidence, as to
the marriage.

The witnesses voted to be called in, were opposed by the impeachers, who would first have had it voted, "that in the article is contained matter of impeachment."

Several questions proposed in writing [by Mr Powle] and
read, and delivered at the Clerk's table, to be demanded of the
Lord Mayor of London(fn. 8) :

1. About what sum of money is it that is owing to you
from his Majesty ?

2. Did not the Lord Treasurer, several times, promise you
that, in case the match betwixt his second Son and Mrs Hyde
took place, he would use his prevalent and utmost interest
with his Majesty to procure you payment of the debt, which his
Majesty owed you?

3. Did not the Lord Treasurer enter into articles with you,
under his hand and seal, in order to this match; and before
sealing such articles, did not you acquaint him with Emerton's
pretence of being married to the said Mrs Hyde; and what was
the date of such articles?

4. Did not the Lord Treasurer advise and encourage you to
enter into articles with Emerton, after the articles with his
Lordship were sealed?

5. Did you not, about the 10th of January last, send down into the country a servant, at the Lord Treasurer's request, to
accompany a servant of his, to examine the Minister that was
said had married them? And what do you know, or believe,
concerning his being apprehended by one of the Lord Treasurer's
servants seizing and bringing him to Whitehall? And by what
warrant was he so apprehended?

6. Did not the Lord Treasurer advise you to write him a letter,
to the intent he might show it to his Majesty, the better to engage
him in that affair? And who was present at such examination?

7. What did the Minister say to you, at your house, when he
came thither, after his examination before the King?

8. Did not the Lord Treasurer appoint you what Sollicitors,
Attorneys, or Lawyers, should be employed in the King's
Bench, and Spiritual Court ? Or did you use any but such as
he first approved of? And did you not always consult with his
Lordship in all the proceedings in reference to that affair? Or
did you act any thing but by his direction?

9. Did the Lord Treasurer advise and direct you to stand out
an alias et plures Habeas Corpus, to a fine and contempt of
the court, before you brought Mrs Hyde thither? And was he
not displeased and angry with you, for your giving obedience to the
court at last, in carrying Mrs Hyde thither, saying, "It was too
great an adventure." What was the rule of the court, which
the King's Bench made, in this business, and under what
penalty?

10. Did the Lord Treasurer's Son, Lord Dumblain, obey that
rule of court, and forbear making his applications to her, in order to marriage? And how often did he persuade her to be contracted to him, by breaking of gold? And how was she persuaded by Lady Clifton? And what were the discontents of the
Countess of Danby, that day, and your apprehensions, touching
his intention to have carried Mrs Hyde away from your house?

11. What provocation did you give your Counsel, to join with
Emerton's Counsel last week, at the King's Bench Bar, to defame
you? And wherefore did you so?

12. Did not the Lord Treasurer promise you, that, if this
marriage succeeded, he would procure you the reversion of a considerable office for your Son, Charles Vyner?

Debate on the applicableness of the Questions, proposed, to the
Articles.

Mr Powle.] Hears it asked "whether these Questions
are pertinent to the Articles, or not?" Most of these
Questions will be so. Would know how far the King is
debtor to the Lord Mayor. The Lord Treasurer was
the first that profferred the payment of the Lord Mayor's
debts, if he would agree to the marriage. If this be so,
'tis not foreign to the Article, for it sells the King's debt,
to marry his Son—And if stopping a Habeas Corpus, &c.
be not a crime, 'tis strange.

Sir Richard Temple.] Shall you examine witnesses with
Questions not applicable to the Article? Though possibly they may to other matters.

Sir William Lewis.] You have entertained a charge,
and 'tis fit it should be debated for what.

Mr Garroway.] 'Tis a justification to you, that such
frivolous things as these, are no ground of impeachment,
and would have them entered in your books.

Sir William Lewis.] When you ask a question, you
must have the resolution entered also—'Twas an order
that the paper of Questions should be brought up to the
Speaker.

The Speaker acknowledged his error, that the Questions ought
to be entered into the Journal.

[Resolved, That the fifth Question, only, be asked the Lord
Mayor.]

When the Lord Mayor was to be called in, the Speaker informed the House, "That the Lord Mayor and Aldermen have
been upon their knees here at the Bar, and you may refuse the Lord
Mayor a chair. 'Tis a civility you give to a Lord that is a
Peer, and not to a Commoner. The Judges who have come
hither, have had chairs, because they have been called by the
King's writ of attendance to the Lords house."

On a division, the Lord Mayor had a chair allowed him [141 to
137,] but he made no use of it.

Question. Did you send your servant with the Lord
Treasurer's into the country, &c?

Lord Mayor.] As to Mr Brandly's being seized
when he came to town, he knows nothing but from Mr
Brandly himself. He saw the warrant from Mr Secretary Williamson, and he thinks it as a Justice of Peace's
warrant, and not extraordinary.

The Lord Mayor was dismissed.

Mr Sec. Williamson produced the copy of the warrant.

Sir Thomas Meres.] There was never such a warrant
on such an occasion, nor such an execution of a warrant,
from a Justice of the Peace.

Mr Sec. Williamson.] The Lord Mayor made application to the King for this warrant, and he had a command from the King, by my Lord Treasurer, to issue
out the warrant; and he knows no farther of it.

Sir Nicholas Carew.] The person, by this warrant, is
seized by armed men, and carried away in durance. This
touches the subject.

Mr Powle.] Hears no direction, in the warrant, to any
legal Officer's hand, only to a Messenger; and would
have it considered, whether this is an usual way for a man
to be sent for, by a Messenger, to be examined against
himself.

[Resolved, That there is no ground of impeachment against
the Lord Treasurer, in this Article]

5. Sir Rabert Vyner, of whom the
Spectator (No. 462) relates the fol
lowing story: "King Charles the
IId, more than once, dined with
his good Citizens of London. on
their Lord Mayor's Day, and so he
did the year that Sir Robert Vyner
was Mayor. Sir Robert was a very
loyal man, and if you will allow the
expression, very fond of his Sovereign; but what with the joy he
felt at the heart for the honour
done him by his Prince, and thro'
the warmth he was in with continual toasting healths to the Royal
Family, his Lordship grew a little
fond of his Majesty, and entered
into a familiarity not altogether so
graceful in so public a place. The
King knew very well how to extricate himself in all kinds of difficulties, and, with a hint to the company to avoid ceremony, stole off,
and made towards his coach, which
stood ready for him in Guild Hall
yard. But the Mayor liked his company so well, and was grown so intimate, that he pursued him hastils,
and catching him fast by the hand,
cried out with a vehement oath and
accent, "Sir, you shall stay and
take the other bottle." The airy
Monarch looked kindly at him over his shoulder, and, with a smile,
and graceful air, repeated this line
of the old song "He that's drunk
"is as great as a King"; and immediately turned back, and complied with his landlord. This very
Mayor afterwards erected a statue
of his many monarch in Stocks
market [where the Mansion-House
now stands] and did the Crown
many and great services; and it
was owing to this humour of the
King, that his family had so great a
fortune shut up in the Exchequer of
their pleasant Sovereign."

6. This was a dedication to the
Duke of Lauderdale, of his Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and
Laws, of the Church and State of
Scotland, published in 1672. The
author being afterwards reproached for representing the Duke's character, very differently from what he
had done in that dedication, replied, "That the book was written
when the Duke was the King's
Commissioner in Scotland, and dedicated to him at his own request, and that if what had happened a year and half after that had
given him other thoughts of that
Minister of State, it was no proof
that he wrote disingenuously at that
time."